Court Rejects Malema’s Bid to Overturn Ethics Ruling Over Judge Matojane Comments

Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), has failed in his legal effort to overturn a parliamentary ethics ruling that demanded he apologise to Judge Keoagile Matojane. The Western Cape High Court dismissed his application this week, dealing a blow to his long-running campaign to sidestep the consequences of a 2021 Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview that stirred controversy.

The case stemmed from Malema’s remarks during the JSC interviews in April 2021. He challenged Judge Matojane over a previous defamation ruling involving Malema, the EFF, and then-spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi. The trio had been ordered to pay R500,000 in damages to former finance minister Trevor Manuel for defamatory comments linking him improperly to SARS commissioner Edward Kieswetter.

During the JSC proceedings, Malema questioned the judge’s reasoning for the damages award, despite the matter being sub judice at the time. Judge Matojane refused to respond, stating that the issue was pending before the Constitutional Court.

This exchange led to a formal complaint from the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), accusing Malema of trying to undermine judicial integrity. CASAC argued that Malema used his position on the JSC not for the public interest, but to settle personal scores.

In response, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests ruled in December 2021 that Malema had violated the code of ethical conduct. He was instructed to publicly apologise to Judge Matojane in Parliament by February 2022.

Rather than comply, Malema took the matter to the High Court. He claimed he was exercising his right to freedom of expression and had not gained personally from the interaction.

However, a full bench of the Western Cape High Court — Judges Chantel Fortuin, Lister Nuku, and Acting Judge Phillipa van Zyl — found his arguments lacking. The court ruled that Malema had raised constitutional issues in what was ultimately a political dispute and stated clearly that his legal challenge had no substantial basis.

“The applicant raised constitutional issues in pursuit of what is essentially a political dispute. The grounds of review were patently without merit,” the judgment read.

As of now, Malema and the EFF have not indicated whether they plan to appeal the decision.

This ruling reinforces Parliament’s ability to hold public officials accountable, even those as high-profile and outspoken as Julius Malema. It also sends a clear message that political privilege does not shield anyone from ethical scrutiny — particularly when it concerns the independence and respect due to the judiciary.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com